If you can watch for free on GTV how can they justify charging companies like Netflix for the same thing?
When will they sue the makers of PlayOn?
Do copyright owners have the right to legaly con trol how you watch their content in a streaming world?
How is GTV any different from attaching a HTPC to your TV? Once the content enters your home (legally) does the content owner have the right to decide what devices you can and can not view their content on?
If I can legally watch their show on the web why does the fact that I'm using a web browser on a big TV get treated differently than watching on a small monitor?
Is GTV just grabbing the stream and not sending the ads that web viewers have to watch?
If it's not a fair trade, then one of us is ripping off the other guy, and that's not cool. If you buy something at a store, you are paying more than what it cost. Unless it's a loss leader, you are getting ripped off on everything you buy that is generating profit for someone else. If you buy that logic, then all profit is evil regardless of what it took to get that profit.
Nope, add another one to the bad guys score. Theyre still winning by a lot
I take it you consider Google a bad guy too?
Fact is, ignoring who is "good" vs. "bad" in this case, software patents in general are bad and any ruling against them is a good thing overall, no matter who it benefits.
Nope, add another one to the bad guys score. Theyre still winning by a lot
I take it you consider Google a bad guy too?
Fact is, ignoring who is "good" vs. "bad" in this case, software patents in general are bad and any ruling against them is a good thing overall, no matter who it benefits.
Except that the only ruling was that Google did not infringe upon these particular copyrights and patents. It didn't do anything to help us fight copyrights or patents in general.
All it does is save a lot of companies that depend on Java/Android form having to pay Oracle money, which is a win for those companies and their customers.
Except that the only ruling was that Google did not infringe upon these particular copyrights and patents. It didn't do anything to help us fight copyrights or patents in general.
All it does is save a lot of companies that depend on Java/Android form having to pay Oracle money, which is a win for those companies and their customers.
Good point... Brain fart on my part for not realizing that distinction.
Comments
When will they sue the makers of PlayOn?
Do copyright owners have the right to legaly con trol how you watch their content in a streaming world?
How is GTV any different from attaching a HTPC to your TV? Once the content enters your home (legally) does the content owner have the right to decide what devices you can and can not view their content on?
If I can legally watch their show on the web why does the fact that I'm using a web browser on a big TV get treated differently than watching on a small monitor?
Is GTV just grabbing the stream and not sending the ads that web viewers have to watch?
Fact is, ignoring who is "good" vs. "bad" in this case, software patents in general are bad and any ruling against them is a good thing overall, no matter who it benefits.
All it does is save a lot of companies that depend on Java/Android form having to pay Oracle money, which is a win for those companies and their customers.